1. Technical Field
The invention relates to system integration in electronic data discovery. More particularly, the invention relates to a method and apparatus for communicating and managing automatic electronic data discovery collections and holds from electronic discovery management systems to disparate data sources in a uniform way.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Electronic discovery, also referred to as e-discovery or EDiscovery, concerns discovery in civil litigation, as well as tax, government investigation, and criminal proceedings, which deals with information in electronic form. In this context, electronic form is the representation of information as binary numbers. Electronic information is different from paper information because of its intangible form, volume, transience, and persistence. Also, electronic information is usually accompanied by metadata, which is rarely present in paper information. Electronic discovery poses new challenges and opportunities for attorneys, their clients, technical advisors, and the courts, as electronic information is collected, reviewed, and produced. Electronic discovery is the subject of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which are effective Dec. 1, 2006. In particular, for example, but not by way of limitation, Rules 16 and 26 are of interest to electronic discovery.
Examples of the types of data included in e-discovery include e-mail, instant messaging chats, Microsoft Office files, accounting databases, CAD/CAM files, Web sites, and any other electronically-stored information which could be relevant evidence in a law suit. Also included in e-discovery is raw data which forensic investigators can review for hidden evidence. The original file format is known as the native format. Litigators may review material from e-discovery in any one or more of several formats, for example, printed paper, native file, or as TIFF images.
Currently, automatic propagation of collection requests, i.e. the process of collecting the data from data sources, and hold requests, i.e. the process when a data source is instructed to preserve certain data, from electronic discovery management systems to data sources is an emerging area in which standards and best practices have not been established. Current approaches to EDiscovery are expensive due to the repeated manual steps and processes. Also, there is no well established and agreed upon understanding of how automatic propagation of collection and hold requests can be accomplished in a way that is both robust and defensible. For example, evidence may be spoiled due to misuse or overhandling. Further, it is often necessary to repeat discovery due to the poor integrity afforded by current approaches.
For example, currently collections are performed in the following way:                A collection specialist receives a collection notice, which is a human-readable instruction typically sent by email.        The collection specialist uses a collection tool, such as search engine or forensic evidence collection software, to first search and identify, and then collect relevant content.        Then, the collection specialist can upload the collected content into an electronic discovery management system. Although, more typically, information is stored on a file share or CD/DVD.        
It would be advantageous to remove or minimize human participation in the collection or hold process and to do so in a robust, fast, transparent, and legally defensible manner.
It would also be advantageous to upload and track all of the information collected in an evidence inventory management system, as well as from data sources to discovery management systems.
It would also be advantageous to provide a robust and defensible way of communicating electronic discovery collection and hold requests from electronic discovery management systems to data sources, as well as from data sources to discovery management systems.